Particracy Forum

I never limited people on how to vote nor does any rp laws passed by me do that. I don't know from where this comes.

You are not understanding there was nobody at all in Jelbania who wanted to continue with that RP. Nobody.

Moderation busted Jelbania's game mechanics to turn it into a prop purely for the benefit of people who was not even in Jelbania.

All I know is if what cm99777 could do what he did in Jelbania (& without even being there after he left) then makes no sense at all Govenor12 cant do what he wants in Solentia.

Hear Hear. Especially if all actions by me are covered by passed rp laws which were passed long before the new player entered.

It seems to me a case of double standards.

It still leaves the question to me: There is an rp law constitutional amendment which provides for the right of the military to conduct a coup. On what basis can a coup bed conductet unilaterally if the other party does rp-revelant actions but refuses to directly participate in rp communication?


Another issue which makes me more than angry: Is it true that rp-constitutional amendments can be generally be overturned by a simple majority?

Govenor12 wrote:I never limited people on how to vote nor does any rp laws passed by me do that. I don't know from where this comes.

You are not understanding there was nobody at all in Jelbania who wanted to continue with that RP. Nobody.

Moderation busted Jelbania's game mechanics to turn it into a prop purely for the benefit of people who was not even in Jelbania.

All I know is if what cm99777 could do what he did in Jelbania (& without even being there after he left) then makes no sense at all Govenor12 cant do what he wants in Solentia.

Hear Hear. Especially if all actions by me are covered by passed rp laws which were passed long before the new player entered.

It seems to me a case of double standards.

It still leaves the question to me: There is an rp law constitutional amendment which provides for the right of the military to conduct a coup. On what basis can a coup bed conductet unilaterally if the other party does rp-revelant actions but refuses to directly participate in rp communication?


Another issue which makes me more than angry: Is it true that rp-constitutional amendments can be generally be overturned by a simple majority?

Hm, it’s the same standard if anything, surely? A coup is a fairly exceptional event and one that isn’t necessarily the logical consequence of the in-game actions. An OOC agreement would have to be reached before a coup could take place due to the way it can impact the other player’s game experiences.

Just as in Jelbania the issue was that there would have to be an OOC agreement before you can RP something that significant. Albeit considering there are vast differences elsewhere in these two cases it’s hard to compare them, so I’d have to disagree on account of it being any sort of similar or double standard.

Despite the RP law allowing the military to conduct a coup, the two players would still have to agree to do so; they could then just RP on the basis of those laws established by the RP law. In other words, they have the right to do it, but to actually do it you need OOC consent because it’s a significant action.

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=581207

Is this an acceptable RP Law?

With this decision the following behaviour becomes legal:

I can break rp laws i can do whatever I want and if i don't like the actions by rp-police and rp-justice system or another rp institution which acts against my rule breaking or irresponsible actions which would hardly be realitsic i can simply say: "I disagree with that, because I never gave my agreement and the moderation will back my behaviour."

By the logic of the moderation the next time i get caught speeding i just say that i never consented to the rules of the road and don't have to pay the fine.



This decision completly displays that the moderation decided to move this game into complete unrealistic direction. Thanks for nothing. In any country in the real world with such a strong position of the military which additonally has been written down in the constitution a coup would have resulted.

Yolo04 wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=581207

Is this an acceptable RP Law?

Just took a quick look over but providing there’s a reference bill in some form and a vote I would say so

Govenor12 wrote:With this decision the following behaviour becomes legal:

I can break rp laws i can do whatever I want and if i don't like the actions by rp-police and rp-justice system or another rp institution which acts against my rule breaking or irresponsible actions which would hardly be realitsic i can simply say: "I disagree with that, because I never gave my agreement and the moderation will back my behaviour."

By the logic of the moderation the next time i get caught speeding i just say that i never consented to the rules of the road and don't have to pay the fine.



This decision completly displays that the moderation decided to move this game into complete unrealistic direction. Thanks for nothing. In any country in the real world with such a strong position of the military which additonally has been written down in the constitution a coup would have resulted.

I disagree, contradicting a valid RP law is disallowed, but staging a coup requires consent. That’s the distinction. But I do see your point of view. I think there’s been something of a miscommunication here... would you mind PMing me on here or via the discord?

Thanks!

By entering Solentia with the knowledge of the rp laws he knew that a coup is possible might result with a high probability if he would take the actions he then took.

Again this is like entering into a contract, but in this game he could have reduced the chances of a coup by simply abolisihing the laws over time.

But i will do that.

Nevertheless this remains extremly frustraiting that every now and then moderation makes new rp rules then suddenly you have rulings and then again new rp law rules. This is not only confusing but absolutly not helpful. It would also be good if the moderation could decide whether they wish to exercise common-law or statutory law+ the moderation could publish all their rulings clearly in an extra thread.

I have a better suggestion:

Why not involving more players in the upcoming new rp rules?

On your first point as I say I just disagree, but we’re just going around in circles here haha.

Regarding your last suggestion, we tend to send rules trough effectively four phases:

Firstly, players from across the game come up with issues, we add them to our own list, and we come up with a list of all the things we need to alter, which is obviously an ongoing process. Any suggestions on that are always welcomed! We’ve also discussed a number of the bigger ideas with people on the discord, and are happy to have a casual chat about our ideas if anyone wants to query them.

Second, we go off and write our draft of what we think they should look like. Practically this can only be done by a handful of individuals in relative privacy — it’s just not helpful for everyone to know every detail when they’re regularly changing and then have ‘too many cooks spoil the broth’ so to speak.

Third, we hand off any relevant RP related rules to the GRC and ask their thoughts on it.

Finally, we open them up to public consultation and adjust them accrordingly.

So it starts off as a bunch of player ideas, then goes through roughly two phases of internal drafting, and then everyone gets to have their say before they’re implemented. If there is a stronger system, though, I’m sure we’d be glad to adopt it, but at the moment I think this is the best system available.

We could consider posting all of the rulings in a separate thread, too, that would be helpful for everyone, but I doubt we could do it retroactively. I like the concept though so we can do that with any future rulings

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... 7&vote=yes

Is this an acceptable RP law? It doesn’t ban any ideology from playing, simply limiting them to running within the party or as independents

BananaZebra wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=583747&vote=yes

Is this an acceptable RP law? It doesn’t ban any ideology from playing, simply limiting them to running within the party or as independents

That's a legit RP law, we can enforce that if it's passed.

Polites wrote:

BananaZebra wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=583747&vote=yes

Is this an acceptable RP law? It doesn’t ban any ideology from playing, simply limiting them to running within the party or as independents

That's a legit RP law, we can enforce that if it's passed.

Ok cool, thanks!